Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Yelp is a popular interactive website allowing its users to create and access reviews of local businesses and services. The site now faces serious accusations of unfair business practices.

After Yelp! received some bad press for what many believe to be shady advertising practices, a class action lawsuit was filed yesterday in a California federal court. According to a press release posted on the Yelp Class Action Website:

"The lawsuit alleges that Yelp runs an extortion scheme in which the company’s employees call businesses demanding monthly payments, in the guise of 'advertising contracts,' in exchange for removing or modifying negative reviews appearing on the website."

Friday, February 19, 2010

Let's say a school administrator crawled into your kid's backpack to sneak into your home.

Creepy McCreeperson? A Pennsylvania family sure thought so when they experienced the functional equivalent.

The Robbins family filed a federal class action lawsuit against a school district after learning the district used a webcam in a school-issued laptop to secretly spy on their 15-year-old son when he was at home. They've sued for invasion of privacy under state law, violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act, and violations of the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Computer Fraud Abuse Act, Stored Communications Act, and the Fourth Amendment.

According to the complaint (which Philly.com posted online), the school surreptitiously spied on students by remotely activating the webcams installed on the laptops the Lower Merion School District issued to them.

The family learned about the remote spying in November of 2009, when an assistant prinicipal told their son, Blake, that she believed he “was engaged in improper behavior in his home, and cited as evidence a photograph from the Webcam embedded in [his] personal laptop issued by the School District.”

The school posted a response on its website, essentially admitting the laptops' webcams can be remotely activated, but saying it was meant to be used for security purposes -- to track down a lost or stolen piece of equipment.

Thursday, February 18, 2010

Yesterday's post discussed the rough week Google has had since launching Google Buzz, its new social networking service offered through Gmail.

Google's week just got a little bit worse.

This morning, news sources report that a federal class action lawsuit has been filed by a Florida woman in San Jose. The complaint alleges Google illegally shared users' personal information via Google Buzz without their consent.

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Google jumped on the social media bandwagon, but it's not going as well as Google had hoped.

Last week, Google launched Google Buzz, a social media service built right into Gmail, Google’s webmail tool.

Cue: immediate backlash from many users and privacy experts alike.

Initially, Google Buzz auto-populated a social network for Gmail users based on a user’s frequent contacts, potentially revealing relationships the user would rather not publicly announce. Buzz also automatically linked up other Google services (Google Reader, for example).

In response to user privacy worries, Google announced changes to Buzz twice within the first four days of its launch.

Despite those changes, the Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission yesterday, for what it called unfair and deceptive trade practices. In its complaint, EPIC asks the FTC to investigate Google Buzz for business practices it believes “violated user privacy expectations, diminished user privacy, contradicted Google’s own privacy policy, and may have also violated federal wiretap laws.” (In December, EPIC filed a similar complaint against Facebook after the popular social networking site changed its privacy settings.).

CBC News has also reported that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada will be taking a closer look at Google Buzz due to increasing privacy concerns, as well.

The woes don’t stop there. CNET News reports that security experts identified a security problem with the Buzz for Mobile service, making Google Buzz accounts susceptible to hacking. Although Google has already corrected the problem, this was just one more snag Google didn’t anticipate.

Monday, February 8, 2010

A labor union has accused Thomson Reuters of illegal pay cuts, as well as improperly restricting what its employees say via Twitter.

The Newspaper Guild of New York filed the charge with the National Labor Relations Board.

The Guild says the company instituted a Twitter policy it never negotiated with the Guild, which prohibits its employees from tweeting anything "that would damage the reputation of Reuters News or Thomson Reuters." According to PR Newswire:

[a] union activist was "reminded" of the policy after responding to a senior manager's call to "join the (Twitter) conversation on making Reuters the best place to work" with a tweet that said: "One way to make this the best place to work is to deal honestly with Guild members."

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

So, what exactly are Facebook's legal duties with respect to protecting the privacy of its 350 million users?

Well, Facebook isn't even sure. And the popular social networking site would like a court to explain that to all of us.

Click here for a write-up discussing the keynote address at LegalTech New York: "Facebook: Perspectives on Corporate eDiscovery and Social Media," delivered by Facebook's deputy general counsel, Mark Howitson.

Megan Erickson Moritz

Search This Blog

Contact Megan by clicking here. But please read the disclaimer (below) BEFORE you send her an email!

Really important disclaimer

You’re probably asking yourself, “Aren’t disclaimers supposed to be in teeny-tiny print?” This disclaimer isn’t in 2-point font for three reasons: (1) no one likes eye strain, (2) disclaimers are important, so the “teeny-tiny font rule” doesn’t make much sense, and (3) I’m a rebel. In fact, as you may have noticed, I’m even going to use contractions. Of course, just because I’m not using words like “heretofore” doesn’t mean anything here has less legal effect.

(1) This site has links to information created and maintained by other people and organizations, and anything on those sites is out of my control. Bad hair days, slow pizza delivery, and El Niño are also out of my control. I’d really like to control bad hair days and am working on that one, but I don’t expect any real breakthroughs. I have no control over the sites referenced or listed as hypertext links in this blog, so keep in mind I’m not responsible for content on other web sites you might visit via this blog (or bad hair days, slow pizza delivery, or El Niño, for that matter). Because I don’t control those third-party sites, I can’t guarantee the accuracy, relevance, timeliness, or completeness of any information or privacy policies posted on those sites.

(2) Any references or links to other sites are provided for your convenience. References or links to other sites don't reflect their importance, and shouldn't be considered an endorsement of the organization, product, or services sponsoring those sites, the views expressed on the sites, or products or services offered on the sites.

(3) This blog doesn’t offer legal advice, so nothing in it should be construed as legal advice. The information on the site is only offered for informational or educational purposes. You shouldn’t act or rely on anything in this blog or use it as a substitute for legal advice from a licensed professional.

(4) The content on this blog may quickly become outdated – especially due to the nature of the topics covered (i.e., technology and the law), which necessarily evolve all the time. The materials and information on this blog are not guaranteed to be correct, complete, or timely.

(5) Nothing in the blog and nothing you or I do on this blog creates an attorney-client relationship between you and the blog; between you and me; between you and the BrownWinick law firm or any of its attorneys; or between you and Spiderman -- or anyone else for that matter. Even if you try to contact me or another attorney through the blog or post a comment on the blog, you’re still not creating an attorney-client relationship. In fact, I might not get a chance to respond to you, and that shouldn't stop you from finding another lawyer. Although I'm a lawyer, I'm not your lawyer until and unless there’s a written agreement specifically saying so.

(6) Please don’t send me confidential information unless we have a written agreement expressly saying we have formed an attorney-client relationship. Frankly, you really wouldn’t want to send me information before we’ve made sure there’s no conflict of interest anyway. (i.e., What if the party you want to sue is my client? It'd just be awkward -- and actually pretty darn bad -- for all of us if we didn't resolve that issue before you give me all the details of your legal problem.)

(7) This blog does not necessarily reflect the views of BrownWinick or any of its clients.

(8) If you’re here with any kind of tax question, you’re really in the wrong place. Kind of like looking for a bucket of boredom in the middle of an officially declared fun zone. (Not that this blog is an officially declared fun zone. That was just an analogy. But I do hope you like the blog, notwithstanding its lack of official “fun” declarations.) If you're looking for tax help, you should find a tax lawyer. I don’t think you’ll find an officially declared fun tax lawyer, but I do wish you luck in such a pursuit. Seriously, though: Taxpayers can’t rely upon anything in this blog to avoid penalties.